On 12/04/2012 08:30 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Luis Rodriguez wrote at 17:19 (EST) on Monday:
I personally see a benefit to evolve copyleft-next slowly to enhance copyleft where GPLv2 left off,
Richard Fontana wrote at 17:59 (EST) on Monday:
For the basic version of copyleft-next, I want users to have the same freedom to install and run that they have under GPLv2. .
My point is that without "install and run", we're moving backwards from GPLv2. GPLv2 requires inclusion of "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" with Source Code.
Ah, that's a good point. I was starting with the GPLv3 definition, which rewrote the CS (C[&]CSC) definition from scratch, essentially.
If you don't have those words in there, it's the equivalent of going to a weaker copyleft -- on the issue of installation of modified versions -- than GPLv2. Does copyleft-next seek to be *weaker* than GPLv2?
Certainly not. (Well, it is weaker in a few senses - for example, it allows 'relicensing' under GPLv3 and AGPLv3 and later FSF versions of GPL/AGPL, which GPLv2 does not. And it states that it evaporates into a noncopyleft license under proprietary relicensing circumstances.)
I don't really want copyleft-next to be about 'negotiations' and 'compromises'.
Then why develop it publicly it all? Why not write it privately and throw it over the wall for all to use? That's, after all, how GPLv2 was developed, AFAIK. ;)
Because I believe collaboration and public discussion (up to a point) will lead to something better.
I think RMS did publish at least one draft of GPLv2 to Usenet.
- RF